Tuesday, 24 December 2013

So the end of another year, one less before the final consumation. A sad year in that we lost Sundog and Kirk, two brave fighters, utterly fearless, courageous men, who had no hesitation in speaking their thoughts, in spite of the opprobium and disdain of the status quo. I salute them.

**********************************

Then the bust up at the Ligotti site over AN. That was a very revealing exchange. It seems ultimately that opponents of AN will retreat into the currently fashionable intellectual agnosticism that rules in liberal ideology: "We don't know enough to judge". ANs are then labelled as dogmatic, but as a friend commented wisely:

I think what bothers me in the antinatalism debate is what I consider a kind of faux-agnosticism
about life .

I
think many people might have to admit they're less agnostic than they
believe themselves to be. For example, when someone consciously decides
to have a kid, and goes through with it, I consider that a gesture in
support of the idea
that life is essentially good and worthwhile, regardless of whether the
parent in question wishes to regard themselves as agnostic about it or
not.

It's
particularly annoying, since antianatalism is often dismissed as a kind
of belief system, while people who procreate are more allowed to call
themselves agnostic about life, somehow. I would think antinatalism is
more agnostic, actually, since it is erring on the side of not bringing
someone into life, since we don't know if it will end up being
worthwhile for that person.

Sums it up nicely. Not to reproduce is often considered 'dogmatic', whereas to procreate is considered 'open-minded' and 'non-judgemental'. Ah, 'tis a topsy-turvy world we live in, to be sure.

(Incidentally, and on a more political note, I'm sure the 'analysis-paralysis' that dominates western thinking must delight our rulers, as they demonstrate absolutely no doubts or hesitations in
making their life and death decisions that affect us all, usually for the worst, and, of course,
afterwards they can always justify themselves with the 'someone had to
take tough decisions' line, which is a perfect way of getting away with
it.)

**************************************

Two days ago I was obliged to enter the huge Apple store in central London. My god, what an experience. I don't think I've seen a more crowded shop in my life. What really struck me was that most people were interested in the trinkets and accessories that go with their iProducts. An extra bauble here, another there, and let's be picky about what colour it is. I've rarely felt more alienated from my own culture and was so relieved to get out of there.

I then came home and put on Al-Jazeera and watched a big report on the current slaughter in both the Sudan and the Central African Republic. Comparing the narcissism of the Apple store with the slaughter in Africa, and then reflecting on the west's savage imperialism and raping of that benighted continent, all I can say is that if the African countries ever got their act together and united to invade Europe in a revenge crusade, I could only say we'd get what we deserve. To quote the greatest chronicler of western decadence, Michel Houellebecq, on the mindset of those of those in the 'advanced' world: 'I know only that every single one of us reeks of selfishness, masochism, and death'.

******************************************

Anyway, putting such cheery thoughts aside, I hope everyone has a
relaxing holiday and a peaceful year ahead. Thanks for reading!

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

The big news relating to Antinatalism last week came with the Chinese government's declaration that their one-child policy was to be loosened. Don't know about you, but I felt the proverbial heart sinking when I learnt the news. I assume that the UN projection of 10 billion on the planet by 2050 will now have to be revised substantially upward. Now obviously the Chinese didn't have a one-child policy because they were convinced Antinatalists ( a friend of mine who worked there told me the limit on procreation was the biggest cause of grumbling amongst the populace, not the lack of democracy) but the fact that such a policy existed was a source of encouragement for me as I thought that it might lead to other governments following their lead, but with the Chinese caving in, I assume this is a forlorn hope.

So now there are going to be even more mouths to feed on an already overcrowded planet with limited resources. Yipee.

What really irks me amongst those who hail the news as a triumph for 'liberalism' or 'human rights' is that population control should be a vital issue even for natalists. After all, if you do have a kid, you want there to be less competitors out there, but no, this seems to be beyond a lot of people. The only thing about it all that did cheer me was that when I scanned an article on the topic in the Guardian, the comments that received the most likes were those calling for enforced population control. So contrary to whar the Liberal left PC Thought Police want you to feel and think, there are actually people out there with sense:

So more people, more indifference, more struggle, more ruthlessness, more environmental degradation, more big inhuman cities, less compassion, less care, less peace etc.

Lest anyone think I exaggerate, there has been specualtion aplenty about future resource wars between Russia and China, Now that the latter has popped its sperm cork, this is ever more likely an eventuality:

Friday, 8 November 2013

Folks, tragic news: it seems Derived Energy, aka Kirk, has taken his own life. I was sent this link. From Google translate it seems Kirk committed suicide while undergoing treatment in a drug rehabilitation centre. There was a note left for his family.

I met Kirk once late last year for a couple of drinks in London. We had a very enjoyable chat about AN and the madness of life in general. I am deeply shocked by this very sad news. My condolences to his friends and family.

Thursday, 10 October 2013

Clarence Darrow is best known for being an American lawyer involved in some of the most famous trials of the 20th century (Scopes, Leopold & Loeb). What's less known is that he was a pessimist of the highest order, who believed life was a mistake and consciousness a burden. He frequently participated in debates with other well-known public figures on philosophical matters (often on a Sunday, now those were the days!).

Below are some addresses of the full debates. The top one contains links to a number of other philosophical contretemps he had during his life.

To provide a feast for the dark senses, I've compiled a collection of some of his juiciest observations below. Enjoy!

Darrow-Foster
Debate 1917 ”Is Life worth Living?”

Consciousness was born in pain and struggle. If the
machine had

been running easily and automatically, everything
would have

been all right, and there would have been no
consciousness.

But, it was born because something was wrong. And it
lives

through pain and struggle, and it dies in the end,
and that is

all;
death is the only relief from pain and struggle.

What is life? Pleasant tnoments? Yes. But from the

time the infant is twisted with his first stomach-ache,
up to the

time of the death agony, pain is always present, and
pretty

much the only time you are happy is when you are
released

from
pain; then you soon get bored.

What is life, anyway? For that is a practical
question.

What is it that we should prize it so highly? Do any
of you

dare tell the truth to yourselves? There is not a
person in this

audience
that dares tell himself the truth about life.

Do you

want to live your lives over, any of you! Would 1 want
to?

Would anybody want to? There might be vagrant parts
of

my life. strong sensations, pleasant memories. But
barring

those, the time I would want to live over, would be
the time 1

was asleep-that is the time I was dead-that is all.
And

every weary person comes home at night happy in the
thought

that he can sleep. And if he cannot sleep without
it, he takes

dope to
make him sleep, because forgetfulness is the best of all.

As we reach out and ask ourselves questions,
understand

the futility of all of it, feel our own pain and the
suffering of

our fellowmen, see life as life really is, then we
are unhappy

and must
be unhappy forever.

“Is life worth
living?” 1920 Starr – Darrow

Work is good because it brings non-existence,

and that non-existence is the most tolerable of all
the forms

of matter in life. There is no other answer to hard
work.

And I know of almost no one who has studied the
philosophy

of life but does not finally come up with the
proposition that

the only thing that makes life tolerable, is hard
work, so

you don't know^ you are living. So, I characterize
hard work

as dope for life.

The fact that life is here, to my mind, proves
nothing, excepting

that if you got a certain amount of earth and heat
and water—

if they were resolved into the simple elements—given
these

elements in certain proportions under certain
conditions, life

will develop, just as maggots will in a cheese. Does
that

prove it is worth while? I cannot see it. It does
not prove

it in any meaning of the words worth while. If it
does prove

it, then everything is equally worth while, and the
living man

is no more a part of nature than the corpse. And the
well

man is no more a part of nature than the sick man.
The

pleasurable emotion is no more a part of nature than
the

painful emotion. The fact that it is here simply
proves it is

here,
that is all.

When I look back over

life, with the many pains 1 have suffered that
happened, and

the many more 1 have suffered that did not happen,
the

greatest satisfaction that 1 find in any of it is
when I am

asleep. And, intellectually, I feel it will be the
best thing

that can
happen to me—to go to sleep again.

Life to me is a joke. That is the way I get by.

It is an
awful joke.

"Foundations of Belief.

"Man, so far as natural science by itself is
able to teach

us, is no longer the final cause of the universe,
the Heavendescended

heir of all the ages. His very existence is an
accident,

his story a brief and transitory episode in the life
of one

of the meanest of the planets. Of the combination of
causes

which first converted a dead organic compound into
the living

progenitors of humanity, science indeed as yet knows
nothing.

It is enough that from such beginnings famine,
disease, and

mutual slaughter, fit nurses of the future lords of
creation,

have gradually evolved, after infinite travail, a
race with conscience

enough to feel that it is vile, and intelligence
enough

to know that it is insignificant. We survey the
past, and see

that its history is of blood and tears, of helpless
blundering,

of wild revolt, of stupid acquiescence, of empty
aspirations.

We sound the future, and learn that after a period,
long compared

with the individual life, but short indeed compared
with

the divisions of time open to our investigation, the
energies

of our system will decay, the glory of the sun will
be dimmed,

and the earth, tideless and inert, will no longer
tolerate the

race which for a moment disturbed its solitude. Man will
go

down into the pit, and all his thoughts will perish.
The uneasy

consciousness, which in this obscure corner has for
a

long space broken the' contented silence of the
universe, will

be at rest. Matter will know^ itself no longer.
"Imperishable

monuments" and "immortal deeds,"
death itself, and love

stronger than death, will be as though they had
never been.

Nor will anything that is be better or be worse for
all that the

labour, genius, devotion, and suffering of men have
striven

through
countless generations to effect."

Darrow-Starr
Is Civilisation a Failure?

Civilization carries with it the germs of its own
destruction,

and its physical destruction and its mental
destruction, because

it is too far away from life. This is not a new
question.

This is not a new civilization. Farther back than
human history

can go-and there have been civilizations perhaps as

great as this at least-as far back as history can
tell, there

have been civilizations which were most likely the
equal of

this, that were the equal of this in every way that
we can

measure the usefulness or the happinness of man.
This world

even within historical times has been swept over and
over

with civilizations which have grown and flourished
and decayed,

and gone
back to the primitive again.

Our civilization is just like the rest. To me, human
life

is one great succession of barbarism, or savagery,
of civilization,

of decay, back to barbarism and savagery, and again

on the to civilization and back. One thing after

another. But we people like every other people of
the world,

live in the present, live for today, close our eyes
to the past

and never dream of the future. We believe that this
civilization

is the only civilization the world has ever seen;
and

if it is going upward it will go on and on and on
until man will

have a brain as tall as a flag pole. He can live on
ideals,

although everybody knows that ideals do not go with
civilization!

An intelligence test of nearly two

million boys between twenty and thirty, twenty being
the age

put down in the test as being the time when the
faculties are

perhaps the most alert. Not a test of knowledge, but
a test

of intelligence and, coming from the great mass of
young men

of the United States, between twenty and thirty.
This test

shows that of our intelligent young men of America of
those

between twenty and thirty, ten per cent average ten
years of

age. That is the moron age. Fifteen per cent average
eleven

years of age. Twenty-five per cent of all of them,
thirteen

and a half years of age. Seventy per cent of all of
them, of

all the young men of America, run below fourteen
years of

age.
Now, that is what we get out of civilization.

First, there is no evidence that the brain

power of civilized man is any better than the brain
power of

the barbarous man. I think perhaps Professor Starr
will agree

with me on that. If he can think of enough other
things to

say I am sure he will agree with me on that. The
brain power

is very poor and very weak. They are living on the
verge

of want; they have no education; they could get
along pretty

well with an easy life; they could get along in a
land that was

not civilized; they could live in tribes where
people live simple

and close to Nature. But, around these people is
built the

environment of civilization, an environment which
sends a

great mass of them to jail, to the insane asylums,
and to institutions;

an environment that is too strong for the ordinary

man, no matter whether he is savage or civilized;
and they are

decaying,
and decaying fast.

We have reared a monster which we call civilization:

which leaves the great mass of men entirely unfitted
for the

structure we have built; and they wander around
blindly in

this dizzy maze until they destroy what there is and
go back;

go back to the barbarism from whence they came; and
we

go over the old, old weary round again. The great
mass of

men are like the great mass of animals, of whom they
are

a part. They must live close to life; they must live
close to

Nature. Civilization cannot possibly maintain
itself. I am

not obsessed of the human race. Perhaps the best
thing that

could happen to it would be to die. But, it is not
going to

die;
that is the trouble with it.

Let me see what civilization does for the human
race.

Build a high stone wall, north and south across
Chicago, and

fence in about a mile adjoining the lake-that puts
all of us

swells in that pen where we ought to be-and in two
hundred

years, if we had no contact with the outside world,
nobody

would be alive. They cannot produce life and they
cannot

sustain life, and life comes from the primitive
peoples who

are near Nature, who are near the source of
supplies; from

those primitive peoples who come to us from other
countries.

from those who have not been infected and destroyed
by this

wonderful civilization which is the glory of
everybody who

does not
think about it!

Life cannot be sustained except through the
primitive, and

the trouble with civilization-one trouble-it will
not even

destroy life, because there will always be left
enough of the

uncivilized to take up life where civilization
throws it down,

and carry it on. Life is everlastingly being
preserved by the

primitive people of the world and going over the
same old

weary
round.

The idea that

some evolutionists believe in-I don't know why-that
insistent

in life itself is beneficience; which is another
religious

idea, for beneficience implies consciousness, and
the evolutionist

of the Ingersoll type, has imply taken God out of

the skies and put him into man and now you can see
how

and what he looks Eike. Both of them are utterly
unscientific;

purely religious; have no basis in fact; and cannot
be proven

by any
of the experiences of human life!

live together in masses. Well, now, let us see about
it.

The ability to live together in masses. Why in
masses? I

am inclined to think that a great city is the most
striking

evidence of disease that civilization has furnished.
Why

should the human race live together in masses? They
are

drawn together because the ideal of civilization is
money.

And this ideal is responsible for every really great
city on

the face of the earth today. And, it is destroying
itself.

Why isn't the more primitive life of man, where he
lived'

further apart and roamed a greater area, a more
natural state

of man, and after all, a happier state for the great
mass of

men who live upon the earth? Now what is our ability
to

live together in masses? And is it a success or
failure? How

do we do it? Why, I will tdl you how we do it. Take

Chicago, New York or London. Now about three per
cent

have nearly all there is; they have most of all the
lands, and

the wealth and the accumulated stores that the labor
of the

- world gives; and they live together in manses,
how? Why,

by hiring lawyers and policemen! By building jails;
by keeping

the masses at bay by main force and by fear. And do
you

suppose a civilization like this could rest, except
through fear?

Not for a moment. Do you suppose two or three per
cent

of the human beings of civilized communities could
own everything

there is and see the great majority livinq close to
want

and still live together in masses, except by the
club and by

the
jail? Is that a success?

No such condition of gross inequality, of hopeless
brutality,

can be pointed to, I believe, amongst the
uncivilized peoples

of the earth. The gross inequality and injustice
which civilization

has given to the world is preserved as distinctions
were

preserved in barbarism, by the club and by fear. And
the

preachers and the teachers and the lawyers would
never think

that they had created a civilization where a man
could go to

sleep at night unless a policeman was etanding
outside his

door with a club. Now, that is our civilization. And
this

handful of civilized people who are the owners of
civilization

and the dictators of life and of liberty, are kept
alive by an

army of doctors, examining their blood, making
tests, hunting

germs, vaccinating them for smallpox, for diptheria,
taking

out appendix, adenoids, and pulling out whatever
teeth

they have left. Everything to keep this bunch alive.
Why,

look at the mass of lawyers, doctors, -policemen,
jailers, newspapermen,

that are called in to aid to keep up this
civilization!

Where men do not live together in masses because
they know

the art of living together in masses; but where the
chief pursuit

is some form of robbery, and -overreaching and where

men are held together by force and nothing else. Is
it a

success! I will have to go to the dictionary and see
if I can

find a
new definition of success.

The
Story of My Life

I
am inclined to believe that the mostsatisfactory part of life is the
time spent in sleep, when one is utterly oblivious toexistence;
next best is when one is so absorbed in activities that one is altogetherunmindful of self.

I
am satisfied that no one with a moderate amountof intelligence
can tolerate life, if he looks it squarely in the face, without welcomingwhatever soothes and solaces, and makes one forget.

Nothing is so cruel, so wanton, so unfeeling as Nature; she moves with
theweight of a
glacier carrying everything before her. In the eyes of Nature, neither man norany of the other animals mean anything whatever. The rock-ribbed
mountains, the

tempestuous sea, the scorching desert, the myriad weeds and insects and
wild beasts thatinfest
the earth, and the noblest man, are all one. Each and all are helpless against
thecruelty and immutability of the resistless processes
of Nature.

Whichever way man may look upon the earth, he isoppressed with the suffering incident
to life. It would almost seem as though the earthhad
been created with malignity and hatred. If we look at what we are pleased to
call thelower animals, we behold a universal carnage. We
speak of the seemingly peacefulwoods, but we need only
look beneath the surface to be horrified by the misery of thatunderworld. Hidden in the grass and watching for its prey is the
crawling snake whichswiftly darts upon the toad or mouse
and gradually swallows it alive; the hapless animalis
crushed by the jaws and covered with slime, to be slowly digested in furnishing
a meal.The snake knows nothing about sin or pain
inflicted upon another; he automatically grabsinsects
and mice and frogs to preserve his life. The spider carefully weaves his web tocatch the unwary fly, winds him into the fatal net until
paralyzed and helpless, then drinkshis blood and leaves
him an empty shell. The hawk swoops down and snatches a chickenand carries it to its nest to feed its young. The wolf pounces on the
lamb and tears it toshreds. The cat watches at the hole
of the mouse until the mouse cautiously comes out,then
with seeming fiendish glee he plays with it until tired of the game, then
crunches itto death in his jaws. The beasts of the
jungle roam by day and night to find their prey; thelion
is endowed with strength of limb and fang to destroy and devour almost any
animalthat it can surprise or overtake. There is no
place in the woods or air or sea where all lifeis not a
carnage of death in terror and agony. Each animal is a hunter, and in turn ishunted, by day and night. No landscape is so beautiful or day so
balmy but the cry ofsuffering and sacrifice rends the
air. When night settles down over the earth the slaughteris not abated. Some creatures see best at night, and the outcry of the
dying and terrified isalways on the wind. Almost all
animals meet death by violence and through the mostagonizing
pain. With the whole animal creation there is nothing like a peaceful death. Nowhere
in nature is there the slightest evidence of kindness, of consideration, or afeeling for the suffering and the weak, except in the narrow
circle of brief family life.

Man furnishes no exception to the rule. He seems to add the treachery
and deceit that theother animals in the main do not practice, to all the other cruelties
that move his life. Manhas made himself master of the
animal world and he uses his power to serve only his ownends.
Man, at least, kills helpless animals for the pleasure of killing, alone.

for manhimself
there is little joy. Every child that is born upon the earth arrives through
theagony of the mother. From childhood on, the life is
full of pain and disappointment andsorrow. From
beginning to end it is the prey of disease and misery; not a child is born thatis not subject to disease. Parents, family, friends, and
acquaintances, one after anotherdie, and leave us
bereft. The noble and the ignoble life meets the same fate. Nature knowsnothing about right and wrong, good and evil, pleasure and pain;
she simply acts. Shecreates a beautiful woman, and
places a cancer on her cheek. She may create an idealist,and kill him with a germ. She creates a fine mind, and then burdens it
with a deformedbody. And she will create a fine body,
apparently for no use whatever. She may destroythe most
wonderful life when its work has just commenced. She may scatter tuberculargerms broadcast throughout the world. She seemingly works with
no method, plan orpurpose. She knows no mercy nor
goodness. Nothing is so cruel and abandoned asNature. To
call her tender or charitable is a travesty upon words and a stultification ofintellect. No one can suggest these obvious facts without being
told that he is notcompetent to judge Nature and the God
behind Nature. If we must not judge God as evil,then we
cannot judge God as good. In all the other affairs of life, man never hesitates
toclassify and judge, but when it comes to passing on
life, and the responsibility of life, heis told that it
must be good, although the opinion beggars reason and intelligence and is adenial of both.

Intellectually, I am satisfied thatlife is a serious burden, which no
thinking, humane person would wantonly inflict onsome
one else.